In Miller, the issue was resolved under Louisiana law.
3Fourth Amendment analysis the Fifth Circuit stated that:[E]ven though network administrators and computer technicians necessarily hadsome access to his computer, there is no evidence that such access was routine. Thecity did not disseminate any policy that prevented the storage of personal informationon city computers and also did not inform its employees that computer usage andinternet access would be monitored. Accordingly, given the absence of a city policyplacing Slanina on notice that his computer usage would be monitored and the lack of any indication that other employees had routine access to his computer, we holdthat Slanina’s expectation of privacy was reasonable.283 F.3d at 676-77 (citations omitted). Unlike Slanina, BP had a policy placing all employees onnotice that email was not private and may be monitored. In addition, the Fifth Circuit did not statethat evidence of actual monitoring of communications was required.In Miller v. Blattner, 676 F.Supp.2d 485 (E.D.La. 2009), Judge Fallon concluded that where“an employer has a rule prohibiting personal computer use and a published policy that emails onAllpax’s computers were the property of Allpax, an employee cannot reasonably expect privacy intheir prohibited communications.” Id. at 497.
Unlike Miller, BP did not have a rule prohibitingpersonal use of company computers. See Thygeson v. U.S. Bankcorp, 2004 WL 2066764 (D.Or.)(an employer had an explicit policy banning personal use of office computers and permittingmonitoring, and therefore there was no expectation of privacy); Kelleher v. City of Reading, 2002WL 1067442, *8 (E.D. Pa.) (email system was only for official city business, so there was noexpectation of privacy).In Muick v. Glenayre Electronics, 280 F.3d 741 (7
Cir. 2002), the Seventh Circuit stated:Glenayre (the employer) had announced that it could inspect the laptops that itfurnished for the use of its employees, and this destroyed any reasonable expectationof privacy that Muick (the employee) might have had. . . .
Case 2:10-md-02179-CJB-SS Document 1777 Filed 03/28/11 Page 3 of 5